All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript is accepted after minor editing.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
The Secti9on Editor noted:
> There are still some language issues in the manuscript, e.g., the title and first sentence of the abstract indicate that only one rare earth element was assessed which is not correct. Also, after first-time mentioning of Citrus sinensis, in the rest of the text it should be C. sinensis. Currently, the full Latin name has been used throughout the text.
The authors have made substantial improvements in the revised manuscript.
The authors have made substantial improvements in the revised manuscript.
The authors have made substantial improvements in the revised manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have revised the text in accordance with the suggested changes and comments, and the text has been greatly improved. As such, I believe it is suitable for publication.
Dear Authors, Kindly include all suggestions given by reviewers and re-submit the revised version. Thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This manuscript estimates the ecological and potential health risks of mining rare earth elements in Citrus sinensis growing in the vicinity of mining areas in Southern China. The work is interesting and well-organized. However, I have some observations.
1. There are several typos and grammatical errors. The work would benefit from close editing.
2. Abstract: rewrite for clarity
3. The introduction section lacks structure and doesn’t flow correctly. Consider rewriting.
4. Figure and table legends are too short. Add more descriptive captions and avoid using abbreviations.
5. Add the study’s limitations and future remarks.
6. Add a schematic diagram to summarize the experimental design.
7. Have the authors assessed the amount of bioavailable REEs vs the total REEs?
8. Figure and table legends are too short. Add more descriptive captions and avoid using abbreviations.
9. Consider rewriting the conclusion section.
The subject of the manuscript is very interesting. I think that the data contained in this paper will be a valuable addition to the literature.
However, some things need to be improved.
The language needs to be refined, both stylistically and grammatically.
In the abstract, there is no point in discussing locations named with numbers unfamiliar to the reader, but the text should be adapted to convey basic information about the research to the reader and encourage him or her to read on.
The main shortcoming of the paper is that the discussion is insufficient and too superficial and needs to be completed.
For the methods, it is necessary to describe the sites in more detail (why they were chosen and what their characteristics, similarities, and differences are). The sites that the authors refer to with numbers do not really make sense.
It is unclear at which sites only the soil was taken and at which the fruits of the plants were taken and why. An explanation for such behavior should be provided.
And in the text it would make more sense in some places to write which specific site it is and which characteristic (besides the property/parameter) is described.
There is a lack of information on the quality control of the results given.
The results and discussion should start with an introductory paragraph explaining what was done and why. For example, K2O is not a soil property. It is the amount of K in the soil expressed by oxides. The above points should be corrected throughout the text, especially in conclusion.
Figures are unclear what they represent.
E.g. Figure 1 represents four locations without the broader context (map, location, topography / colour, etc.).
The discussion is insufficient and too superficial and needs to be completed.
For example, the pollution status of REE evaluated by Igeo is shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, only the ranges of the determined Igeo values are listed. Nowhere are the results described in terms of Igeo pollution classes, which is the purpose of using this index.
Numbers should be reduced to three significant figures throughout the text and in all tables (e.g., 0.123; 2.34; 45.6; or 103, 1456).
The conclusion should be rephrased. It should concisely state the concluding thoughts of the study and not repeat the results. K2O is not a soil property! There is no point in listing sites, let alone naming them with numbers in the conclusion.
The manuscript needs to be refined in terms of language, a more detailed description of results and depth of discussion.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.